0 comment Saturday, September 27, 2014 | admin
I always suspect that the programmers at TCM have a political agenda, and as I watched the movie 'Gabriel Over the White House' yesterday, it would seem as if that movie were chosen to make some political point, although the message of the movie itself is vague, and has been read several ways depending on one's political leanings.
For those of you who haven't seen it, 'Gabriel' is an odd movie, released in 1933, apparently produced by William Randolph Hearst during the 1932 presidential campaign. Does it seem as if that particular election keeps coming up lately in the context of today's news? It seems so to me.
Controversial since the time of its release, Gabriel Over the White House is widely acknowledged to be an example of propaganda, although contention exists as to which ideology it is espousing.
Filmed during the 1932 presidential election on the orders of media magnate William Randolph Hearst, the film was intended to be an instructional guide for Franklin D. Roosevelt during his presidency. Hammond as he exists prior to his accident is an amalgamation of caricatures of Presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt's immediate predecessors. After his accident, he is Hearst's idealized image of the perfect president, the president he wanted Roosevelt to be.
These facts, coupled with the film's almost chilling accuracy at predicting Roosevelt's economic programs, lead many, particularly classical liberals and conservatives, to believe that film is a sympathetic portrayal of what might be social liberalism's worst excesses, or even socialism.
Social liberals often counter these claims by declaring that the film's politics trend more toward fascism than socialism. They point out that both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini took steps similar to Roosevelt's in stabilizing their countries' economies and both men were much more like Hammond in their social and foreign policies (e.g., massive military buildup, martial law, secret police, show trials, etc.) than Roosevelt. They further point to Hearst's well-known dalliance with Nazism, including his attendance of the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, as evidence of their theories.
Recently, author and history professor Robert S. McElvaine wrote an editorial for the left-wing OpEdNews.com in which he compared current President George W. Bush to Judson Hammond.''
That last comparison figures; liberals always see a likeness to their favorite ''right-wing'' bogeymen of the day.
The movie is available on DVD, for those who are interested. Or, you can watch the movie at YouTube, in segments, and this link has a talky intro in Spanish, no less, but I include the link because as of now, the comments below the clip are interesting. I suggest you check them out, while they are there. The commenters see a resemblance to today's politics, and to the coming administration. That is what struck me when I watched the movie this time around. I first saw it perhaps 15 years ago, and it impressed me simply as a quirky, odd movie with an ambiguous message. This time, however, I saw the possibilities of a presidency which might resort to authoritarian measures in the service of liberal principles.
I won't go into great detail on the plot of the movie; I am not a movie critic, obviously. The synopsis is at the Wikipedia link.
The first time I saw the movie, some of the historical references went over my head; for instance, the ''Army of the Unemployed" in the movie represented the real-life 'Bonus Army', whose story I was not familiar with previously. I've recently been reading about the 'Bonus Army' in my old 1930s newspapers.
The events depicted in the movie, with the ''Army of the Unemployed" are based on real-life events, but in real life, there was violence used toward the 'Bonus Army', who had set up a tent city in Washington, D.C. The 'army' was made up of World War I veterans who had been promised a bonus for their military service, payable in 1945. However, with the Great Depression, many veterans were unemployed and hungry, and asked for their bonuses to be paid immediately. The Senate, however, rejected a bill which would provide for an early payment.
A month later, on July 28, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the evacuation of the veterans from all government property, Entrusted with the job, the Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two marchers killed. Learning of the shooting at lunch, President Hoover ordered the army to clear out the veterans. Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the cavalry.''
Were any of you taught about this in school? I was not.
The movie President, supposedly being under the influence of the angel Gabriel, carries out his "populist" policies by establishing martial law.
When he sets up miltary tribunals and bombs gangsters into surrendering, we are to understand that this is the agenda he's been given to carry out, his 'divine mission'. So we are to cheer on this president and his authoritarian regime because he is doing it all in the name of ''the people'', the downtrodden, the little guys.
This kind of populism was very much in the air in the 30s, and it's reflected in a lot of the movies of the time, such as ''Meet John Doe'' and ''Sullivan's Travels.'' Perhaps it's natural that the country leaned in this direction then; there were obviously very real grievances against the wealthy and powerful, who did seem to exercise an influence far beyond what our system should allow, and there were egregious injustices which seemed to demand to be rectified.
I did find it ironic in the movie that 'President Hammond' calls the ambassadors of the world together and more or less threatens them into agreeing to disarm by a show of force. They all, of course, promise to stop their arms race, and thus everybody lives happily ever after, at least in the fictional world of this movie.
On my first viewing of this movie some years ago, I could not have imagined a presidency like this one, in which a president assumes dictatorial powers, meeting little resistance. Now it seems much more thinkable. And even if such a presidency showed a benign face, acting in the name of the ''people'' or the downtrodden and oppressed, it would still be a dictatorship nonetheless. I honestly believe that many ''liberals'' despite their constant braying about right-wing authoritarianism would be overjoyed to have a left-wing authoritarian in power; leftists and liberals generally believe, earnestly, that the end justifies the means. And that concerns me.
Labels: American History, Authoritarianism, Hollywood, Old Movies, Politics, Presidency, Propaganda
0 comment Sunday, July 6, 2014 | admin
In discussing popular culture, we often identify the 1960s as the decade in which everything began to change, and countercultural (leftist) ideas began to flood the media and particularly Hollywood movies. However, thinking back on the overall picture, I think a case can be made that the Left was at work over many decades, not just circa 1960 and onward.
Today, an oversimplified view prevails in which ''the hippies'' or the baby-boomers (for many they are synonymous) were the fount and origin of all the bad trends which flowed together to form the upside-down world we inhabit today. The baby-boom generation played their part, but they were mostly just picking up the torch passed on by their elders, who, if not liberal themselves, failed to recognize the liberal incrementalism that transformed things gradually .
Karl Marx and his ideas date back to the mid-19th century, and even before Marx, we can look back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, who were the forerunners of today's leftists. However the ideas that we call leftist or Marxist or socialist became more popular particularly around the time of the Great Depression. This is understandable, given the harsh economic conditions of the time; people were then more likely to listen to pseudo-populist radicals who preached redistribution of wealth.
The 'hippies' or counterculturists came along in the late 60s, not the early part of the decade. By the way, I don't remember ever hearing the word ''hippie'' until 1966, and the San Francisco 'flower child' movement appeared in earnest circa 1967.
The direct predecessors of the hippies were the beatniks, who were into Zen, existentialist philosophy and a freewheeling lifestyle. They differed somewhat from their hippie successors in being more intellectual and less interested in 'back to nature' movements.
But when both these groups were either not yet born, or wearing diapers, the Old Left was busy trying to bring on the Revolution, the uprising of the Proletariat, and usher in the socialist worker's paradise. The Communist Party had been active earlier, around the World War I years, and mass immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe brought many people with radical anarchist or communist ideas into this country, thus strengthening the leftist ranks.
During World War II, one can see how the government began to emphasize the proposition nation idea: we are all Americans if we believe in freedom and tolerance. And the war effort demanded that people of all races and creeds be united in order to win the war. There was considerable effort made towards integration of the races, and the promotion of what has become a shibboleth of our time, 'tolerance.' We can see this in some of the wartime movies and posters. We see the beginnings of multiculturalism in some of the images and rhetoric. See a video here illustrating what I mean.
While on the surface, the ideas seem benign, we can see around us the extremes which are pushed in the name of 'tolerance'. The idea that we are all the same, and differences don't matter, except to 'Nazis', is not true.
The movies of the 1940s seemed to show an increase in ethnic characters -- especially the war movies, in which every platoon or ship's crew had to be a cross-section: an Irishman, a Pole with a name ending in '-ski', an Italian, a plain generic 'American'. Optional: an American Indian talking in slang, a wisecracking Jewish character or a Southerner with a funny drawl, any of which provided 'comic relief.'
The postwar years saw movies dealing with interethnic 'prejudice,' like Gentlemen's Agreement.
The 1950s brought an increase in movies which dealt with the seamy side of life, specifically drug addiction, such as The Man With the Golden Arm, Monkey on My Back, and A Hatful of Rain, the latter two being released in 1957.
At the time, movies on such subjects were touted as 'frank, honest' or 'shocking.' Perhaps they were more reality-oriented than the relatively wholesome entertainment of the previous few decades, but this fixation on sleaze and ugliness became a permanent one in Hollywood as time went on.
Much as we think the 1950s were the decade of Sandra Dee and Doris Day, wholesomeness personified, Hollywood was leaning more towards the 'frank' type of film, with increasing portrayals of the dark side. Even teen films began to focus on illicit sex, pregnancy, and abortion, such as Blue Denim, in 1959, or A Summer Place in that same year.
Films involving bigotry became quite the vogue in the 50s. There were movies about racial deception, or ''passing for White'', films like Pinky, (which actually was a 1949 movie), Imitation of Life, and Showboat.
Other movies that explored the racial theme (from a leftist, politically correct angle, of course) were, oddly, a couple of science fiction movies, notably The World, The Flesh, and The Devil, from 1959. That movie had three survivors of a nuclear attack -- one White woman, played by Swedish actress Inger Stevens, one White man, and one black man. Dilemma: who gets the girl?
I had incorrectly remembered Sidney Poitier as the black man, but reading the IMDB page shows that it was calypso singer Harry Belafonte who played the role.
This comment from IMDB shows the typical PC reaction:
A very thought provoking movie that was not accepted at the time, but in retrospect, way way ahead of its time. In a racially charged world it put forth the premise that race, in the final analysis, is superficial and meaningless. Once you strip away the layers of conditioning and socialization, you find, at the core, good and evil and the age old struggle as to which will prevail. A simple story, told directly and honestly. On a scale of 1 to 10, its an 11.''
Yes, so even in 1959, those Hollywood writers (who were not really communists, honest) were busy little bees promoting radically different ideas, ideas which were in sharp conflict with traditional America. But it was all done with noble motives, you see, so it was for our good that our brains have been washed.
Another movie dealing with 'bigotry' was Pressure Point, in which singer/actor Bobby Darin played some kind of right-wing extremist. His performance was hailed, but the message was sledge-hammer subtle.
Stanley Kramer was kind of a one-man message-film industry in the 50s and onward, with movies like The Defiant Ones, with Sidney Poitier (or was it Belafonte again?) and Tony Curtis handcuffed together in mutual hate, but they learn to get along to survive. Very subtle symbolism there; about as subtle as Star Trek's "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."
Movies of both the 50s and the early 60s had pushed the envelope regarding sexuality, and there were early explorations not only of illicit heterosexual relationships (adultery, incest, even 'child brides' as in Baby Doll) but the subject of homosexuality was brought in in movies like Suddenly, Last Summer.
All of this was done under the guise of 'frankness' and 'honesty', and much was written and said about how the Europeans were ever so much more advanced and enlightened than the inhibited and repressed Anglo-Saxon Christian countries. The Scandinavian countries in particular were much admired by the left and the sophisticated urban set for their open and loose sexual mores.
I can remember, as a teenager, reading articles about how in Denmark and Sweden, sex crimes were few and far between, so if we adopted their free-and-easy sexual attitudes, we would have few to no sex crimes. Everybody would be so free of inhibitions and Victorian repression, and thus nobody would feel the need to commit rape or to molest anybody. We all know how that worked out.
I can't leave out the other prominent them of movies in the 50s and 60s: atomic warfare or nuclear annihilation; World War III. These were the days of 'mutually assured destruction', of talk of nuclear strikes and red phones and the possibility of a mistaken launch of nuclear missiles. Those themes were explored in movies like Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, On the Beach, and others.
Science fiction movies of the time often dealt with post-nuclear holocaust scenarios, or 'atomic mutations' with human beings exposed to radiation becoming giants ("The Amazing Colossal Man") or monsters of some sort.
The Day the Earth Stood Still, a favorite of liberal peaceniks, has a benevolent and wise alien coming to teach erring humanity to behave themselves, and stop all that fighting, or else -- or else the benevolent, peaceful aliens will blast us all to smithereens, which is no more than what we human warmongers deserve. There is a little irony in the message of that film which seems to escape the lefties. Actually, I enjoy the movie, despite its odd message.
Most of the trends and ideas which have come together to make our present-day world the crazy place that it is are present and very visible by the 1950s, and in fact had their origins much further back than that.
1960, however, is sort of an identifiable turning point for popular culture, in which we see things taking shape much more clearly, and by the mid-60s, around the time of the JFK assassination and the emergence of the Beatles, we see the budding counterculture coming into position.
When it comes to watching movies, I find the 1960s, if not the latter 1950s, as being the time when the old America truly began to vanish, bit by bit, and the new 'America' began to take its place.
I tend to avoid movies made from the 1960s onward. I often find it hard to understand how anyone who is not a dedicated leftist multiculturalist can endure watching much of what has been produced in recent decades. I admit to being a purist, but too often I detect the scent of decay about popular culture after the early 1960s.
Today, an oversimplified view prevails in which ''the hippies'' or the baby-boomers (for many they are synonymous) were the fount and origin of all the bad trends which flowed together to form the upside-down world we inhabit today. The baby-boom generation played their part, but they were mostly just picking up the torch passed on by their elders, who, if not liberal themselves, failed to recognize the liberal incrementalism that transformed things gradually .
Karl Marx and his ideas date back to the mid-19th century, and even before Marx, we can look back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, who were the forerunners of today's leftists. However the ideas that we call leftist or Marxist or socialist became more popular particularly around the time of the Great Depression. This is understandable, given the harsh economic conditions of the time; people were then more likely to listen to pseudo-populist radicals who preached redistribution of wealth.
The 'hippies' or counterculturists came along in the late 60s, not the early part of the decade. By the way, I don't remember ever hearing the word ''hippie'' until 1966, and the San Francisco 'flower child' movement appeared in earnest circa 1967.
The direct predecessors of the hippies were the beatniks, who were into Zen, existentialist philosophy and a freewheeling lifestyle. They differed somewhat from their hippie successors in being more intellectual and less interested in 'back to nature' movements.
But when both these groups were either not yet born, or wearing diapers, the Old Left was busy trying to bring on the Revolution, the uprising of the Proletariat, and usher in the socialist worker's paradise. The Communist Party had been active earlier, around the World War I years, and mass immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe brought many people with radical anarchist or communist ideas into this country, thus strengthening the leftist ranks.
During World War II, one can see how the government began to emphasize the proposition nation idea: we are all Americans if we believe in freedom and tolerance. And the war effort demanded that people of all races and creeds be united in order to win the war. There was considerable effort made towards integration of the races, and the promotion of what has become a shibboleth of our time, 'tolerance.' We can see this in some of the wartime movies and posters. We see the beginnings of multiculturalism in some of the images and rhetoric. See a video here illustrating what I mean.
While on the surface, the ideas seem benign, we can see around us the extremes which are pushed in the name of 'tolerance'. The idea that we are all the same, and differences don't matter, except to 'Nazis', is not true.
The movies of the 1940s seemed to show an increase in ethnic characters -- especially the war movies, in which every platoon or ship's crew had to be a cross-section: an Irishman, a Pole with a name ending in '-ski', an Italian, a plain generic 'American'. Optional: an American Indian talking in slang, a wisecracking Jewish character or a Southerner with a funny drawl, any of which provided 'comic relief.'
The postwar years saw movies dealing with interethnic 'prejudice,' like Gentlemen's Agreement.
The 1950s brought an increase in movies which dealt with the seamy side of life, specifically drug addiction, such as The Man With the Golden Arm, Monkey on My Back, and A Hatful of Rain, the latter two being released in 1957.
At the time, movies on such subjects were touted as 'frank, honest' or 'shocking.' Perhaps they were more reality-oriented than the relatively wholesome entertainment of the previous few decades, but this fixation on sleaze and ugliness became a permanent one in Hollywood as time went on.
Much as we think the 1950s were the decade of Sandra Dee and Doris Day, wholesomeness personified, Hollywood was leaning more towards the 'frank' type of film, with increasing portrayals of the dark side. Even teen films began to focus on illicit sex, pregnancy, and abortion, such as Blue Denim, in 1959, or A Summer Place in that same year.
Films involving bigotry became quite the vogue in the 50s. There were movies about racial deception, or ''passing for White'', films like Pinky, (which actually was a 1949 movie), Imitation of Life, and Showboat.
Other movies that explored the racial theme (from a leftist, politically correct angle, of course) were, oddly, a couple of science fiction movies, notably The World, The Flesh, and The Devil, from 1959. That movie had three survivors of a nuclear attack -- one White woman, played by Swedish actress Inger Stevens, one White man, and one black man. Dilemma: who gets the girl?
I had incorrectly remembered Sidney Poitier as the black man, but reading the IMDB page shows that it was calypso singer Harry Belafonte who played the role.
This comment from IMDB shows the typical PC reaction:
A very thought provoking movie that was not accepted at the time, but in retrospect, way way ahead of its time. In a racially charged world it put forth the premise that race, in the final analysis, is superficial and meaningless. Once you strip away the layers of conditioning and socialization, you find, at the core, good and evil and the age old struggle as to which will prevail. A simple story, told directly and honestly. On a scale of 1 to 10, its an 11.''
Yes, so even in 1959, those Hollywood writers (who were not really communists, honest) were busy little bees promoting radically different ideas, ideas which were in sharp conflict with traditional America. But it was all done with noble motives, you see, so it was for our good that our brains have been washed.
Another movie dealing with 'bigotry' was Pressure Point, in which singer/actor Bobby Darin played some kind of right-wing extremist. His performance was hailed, but the message was sledge-hammer subtle.
Stanley Kramer was kind of a one-man message-film industry in the 50s and onward, with movies like The Defiant Ones, with Sidney Poitier (or was it Belafonte again?) and Tony Curtis handcuffed together in mutual hate, but they learn to get along to survive. Very subtle symbolism there; about as subtle as Star Trek's "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."
Movies of both the 50s and the early 60s had pushed the envelope regarding sexuality, and there were early explorations not only of illicit heterosexual relationships (adultery, incest, even 'child brides' as in Baby Doll) but the subject of homosexuality was brought in in movies like Suddenly, Last Summer.
All of this was done under the guise of 'frankness' and 'honesty', and much was written and said about how the Europeans were ever so much more advanced and enlightened than the inhibited and repressed Anglo-Saxon Christian countries. The Scandinavian countries in particular were much admired by the left and the sophisticated urban set for their open and loose sexual mores.
I can remember, as a teenager, reading articles about how in Denmark and Sweden, sex crimes were few and far between, so if we adopted their free-and-easy sexual attitudes, we would have few to no sex crimes. Everybody would be so free of inhibitions and Victorian repression, and thus nobody would feel the need to commit rape or to molest anybody. We all know how that worked out.
I can't leave out the other prominent them of movies in the 50s and 60s: atomic warfare or nuclear annihilation; World War III. These were the days of 'mutually assured destruction', of talk of nuclear strikes and red phones and the possibility of a mistaken launch of nuclear missiles. Those themes were explored in movies like Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, On the Beach, and others.
Science fiction movies of the time often dealt with post-nuclear holocaust scenarios, or 'atomic mutations' with human beings exposed to radiation becoming giants ("The Amazing Colossal Man") or monsters of some sort.
The Day the Earth Stood Still, a favorite of liberal peaceniks, has a benevolent and wise alien coming to teach erring humanity to behave themselves, and stop all that fighting, or else -- or else the benevolent, peaceful aliens will blast us all to smithereens, which is no more than what we human warmongers deserve. There is a little irony in the message of that film which seems to escape the lefties. Actually, I enjoy the movie, despite its odd message.
Most of the trends and ideas which have come together to make our present-day world the crazy place that it is are present and very visible by the 1950s, and in fact had their origins much further back than that.
1960, however, is sort of an identifiable turning point for popular culture, in which we see things taking shape much more clearly, and by the mid-60s, around the time of the JFK assassination and the emergence of the Beatles, we see the budding counterculture coming into position.
When it comes to watching movies, I find the 1960s, if not the latter 1950s, as being the time when the old America truly began to vanish, bit by bit, and the new 'America' began to take its place.
I tend to avoid movies made from the 1960s onward. I often find it hard to understand how anyone who is not a dedicated leftist multiculturalist can endure watching much of what has been produced in recent decades. I admit to being a purist, but too often I detect the scent of decay about popular culture after the early 1960s.
Labels: Classic Movies, Cultural Marxism, Hollywood, Media Bias, Old Movies, Popular Culture, Propaganda
0 comment Saturday, May 10, 2014 | admin
In an earlier blog post I wrote about how Hollywood began pushing the politically correct agenda after the middle of the last century. The propaganda really was stepped up around that time, but in looking through some of the images from older movies and magazines, it's obvious that it was already there in incipient form, and just intensified as the 20th century moved along.
The 'forbidden love' storyline was a popular one back in the silent film era. For example, in the above film.
The same theme of 'forbidden love' is found in the movie The Bitter Tea of General Yen, and just as in the above movie, a European-descended actor plays an Asian man. In Broken Blossoms, Richard Barthelmess played the Chinese man, and in 'The Bitter Tea of General Yen', the title character was played by a Swedish actor, Nils Asther.
Notice the somewhat lurid nature of the poster.
Another film, 'The Pagan' has another European-descended actor, Ramon Novarro, (born in Mexico, but European in appearance) playing a mixed-race Polynesian/White man. In this case, though, the love interest is another half White/half Polynesian character. This movie, like Broken Blossoms, also has a villainous White male character, but in The Pagan, the White villain is also Christian. So you get two for the price of one.
The Pagan is also about the conflict between the idealized 'carefree' culture of the Polynesians and the corrupt ways of Whites. Of course the romanticized Eden of pagan Polynesia is the winner. So the Rousseauian 'noble savage' image was current in the 1920s just as it is now.
Jump ahead a few decades, to 1957, and we have this movie.
The poster mentions the 'forbidden love' storyline, and the movie has lots of that; all the main characters carry on 'forbidden' affairs. Marlon Brando's character, as well as Red Buttons' and James Garner's characters all marry Japanese girls. And Brando's spurned (White) fiancee takes up with a Japanese kabuki actor -- with the oddly-cast Ricardo Montalban playing the actor. He looks particularly unconvincing as a Japanese man; his features are all wrong. His nose is too prominent, and his facial structure just does not look Japanese. But of course race is merely a social construct, isn't it?
By the time Sayonara was released, the multicultural PC propaganda was shifting into high gear. Since then, even in the last few years, it's increased to the point of being ubiquitous and more intense, more insistent, and more open. It's as though they don't even feel the need to disguise it or soft-pedal it. It's blatant and heavy-handed.
But when we stop and consider just how long these ideas have been promoted, it impresses on us just how firmly embedded some of these ideas are in our society.
I continue to try to discover why so many of our people have absorbed these messages like sponges. It seems there is some kind of deep-seated need to idealize others. Most of us, left and right, feel disillusioned with the world we live in, and many people believe that there was some kind of golden age, before we became civlized, in which everybody lived like happy children in a lush Eden, where nobody had to toil or struggle. Everybody just enjoyed life and lived spontaneously and freely. There is some kind of utopian longing for a simple and childlike world. The left in particular idealizes the primitive and even what we would (in non-PC fashion) call the 'savage' way.
I've been accused at times of idealizing the past, and perhaps to some extent I do, but in no way do I claim that any era was perfect or idyllic, as many true utopians do. I can see the past with its flaws, warts and all, and weigh that against the good. On balance there was more good than bad. But those who idealize exotic cultures and peoples, and eras which are only dimly known by today's people, are idealizing something that they have only the slightest knowledge of, or perhaps idealizing something strictly of their own invention.
The myth of the golden age of noble savagery seems to be cherished by many Western White people, even some on the far right, however, they idealize the pre-civilized era in Europe.
Perhaps some of the pull towards mingling with the idealized ''others'' is a misguided attempt to return to some mythical paradise where there is no complicated civilization and above all, no Christianity to say 'Thou shalt not.'
The real truth is that this Edenic 'golden age' everybody seems to long for was a time when life was 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' And this is what our future is to be if we succumb to the urge to try to return to "noble" savagery.
The 'forbidden love' storyline was a popular one back in the silent film era. For example, in the above film.The same theme of 'forbidden love' is found in the movie The Bitter Tea of General Yen, and just as in the above movie, a European-descended actor plays an Asian man. In Broken Blossoms, Richard Barthelmess played the Chinese man, and in 'The Bitter Tea of General Yen', the title character was played by a Swedish actor, Nils Asther.
Notice the somewhat lurid nature of the poster.
Another film, 'The Pagan' has another European-descended actor, Ramon Novarro, (born in Mexico, but European in appearance) playing a mixed-race Polynesian/White man. In this case, though, the love interest is another half White/half Polynesian character. This movie, like Broken Blossoms, also has a villainous White male character, but in The Pagan, the White villain is also Christian. So you get two for the price of one.
The Pagan is also about the conflict between the idealized 'carefree' culture of the Polynesians and the corrupt ways of Whites. Of course the romanticized Eden of pagan Polynesia is the winner. So the Rousseauian 'noble savage' image was current in the 1920s just as it is now.
Jump ahead a few decades, to 1957, and we have this movie.
The poster mentions the 'forbidden love' storyline, and the movie has lots of that; all the main characters carry on 'forbidden' affairs. Marlon Brando's character, as well as Red Buttons' and James Garner's characters all marry Japanese girls. And Brando's spurned (White) fiancee takes up with a Japanese kabuki actor -- with the oddly-cast Ricardo Montalban playing the actor. He looks particularly unconvincing as a Japanese man; his features are all wrong. His nose is too prominent, and his facial structure just does not look Japanese. But of course race is merely a social construct, isn't it?
By the time Sayonara was released, the multicultural PC propaganda was shifting into high gear. Since then, even in the last few years, it's increased to the point of being ubiquitous and more intense, more insistent, and more open. It's as though they don't even feel the need to disguise it or soft-pedal it. It's blatant and heavy-handed.
But when we stop and consider just how long these ideas have been promoted, it impresses on us just how firmly embedded some of these ideas are in our society.
I continue to try to discover why so many of our people have absorbed these messages like sponges. It seems there is some kind of deep-seated need to idealize others. Most of us, left and right, feel disillusioned with the world we live in, and many people believe that there was some kind of golden age, before we became civlized, in which everybody lived like happy children in a lush Eden, where nobody had to toil or struggle. Everybody just enjoyed life and lived spontaneously and freely. There is some kind of utopian longing for a simple and childlike world. The left in particular idealizes the primitive and even what we would (in non-PC fashion) call the 'savage' way.
I've been accused at times of idealizing the past, and perhaps to some extent I do, but in no way do I claim that any era was perfect or idyllic, as many true utopians do. I can see the past with its flaws, warts and all, and weigh that against the good. On balance there was more good than bad. But those who idealize exotic cultures and peoples, and eras which are only dimly known by today's people, are idealizing something that they have only the slightest knowledge of, or perhaps idealizing something strictly of their own invention.
The myth of the golden age of noble savagery seems to be cherished by many Western White people, even some on the far right, however, they idealize the pre-civilized era in Europe.
Perhaps some of the pull towards mingling with the idealized ''others'' is a misguided attempt to return to some mythical paradise where there is no complicated civilization and above all, no Christianity to say 'Thou shalt not.'
The real truth is that this Edenic 'golden age' everybody seems to long for was a time when life was 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' And this is what our future is to be if we succumb to the urge to try to return to "noble" savagery.
Labels: Biased Media, Hollywood, Multiculturalism, Propaganda, Social Engineering